Form and Formless attribute of Bhraman

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

I have three queries,

1. How does one understand the form and formless attributes of Bhraman

2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing of animal skin or

sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas (vehicles).

3. Does soul remember its identity after realisation

Regards,

Raghu Venkata.

[Guest guest]

Question 1: How does one understand the form and formless attributes of Brahman?

 

First, before I err on the ground of intellectualism, I should say that this question too is an experential thing.To put it in a few words "The way to understand Brahman is at the Feet of one's Gurunatha, for He is the sole Brahman, The sole reality"

This time since I have not drunk any Cranberry juice nor am I sane, let me answer this question...

The statement which I made about Gurunatha is the sole truth and the answer for all spiritual questions, it is the basic template, rest of what I say below is just an embelishment to that supreme thought. To be honest with you I know nothing sir as I have not realized anything nor am I in at-one-ness with anything. However, I will ramble on...

The sutrakara of Brahma sutra says at Ubhayalingaadhikaranam thus:

Na sthanato'pi parasyobhayalingam sarvatra hi III.2.11 (329) Not on account of (difference of) place also two-fold characteristics can belong to the Highest; for everywhere scripture teaches It to be without any difference.

Though scripture should never be the sole basis of understanding Brahman, it can be viewed later after a meditative experience.Brahmasutras are "pithy threaded statements"(sutras) penned by experential seers. If you realize, you too can write such a "sutra".In the scriptures we find two kinds of description about Brahman.

Some texts describe it as qualified, i.e., with attributes(form as you put it) and some as unqualified (without attributes). "From whom all activities, all desires, all odours and all tastes proceed" (Chh. Up. III.14.2). This text speaks of form and attributes innuendo.

Then Again we have, "It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long, neither redness nor moisture" etc. (Bri. Up. III.8.8). This text speaks of Brahman without attributes.

So now we are thrown into confusion here, are we to assume that both are true of Brahman according as it is or is not connected with limiting adjuncts or Upadhis or have we to assume only one of them as true and the other false? and if so, which is true? and why it is true?

This Sutra says that the Highest Brahman cannot by itself possess two characteristics. In the case of Brahman you cannot say that it has two aspects, viz., with form and attributes, and without form and attributes, i.e., with Upadhis (limiting adjuncts) and without Upadhis, because It is described everywhere as being Nirguna (without attributes). Both cannot be predicated of one and the same Brahman because it is against experience. One and the same thing cannot have two contradictory natures at the same time.This is against even a basic Tarkawada positation.

In essence, Brahman cannot at the same time have form and be formless. The yellowness of a lamp reflected in a crystal does not change the nature of the crystal which is colourless. Even so the mere connection of a thing with another does not change its nature. It is an altogether erroneous notion to impute yellowness to the crystal. In other words the yellowness of the crystal is unreal. A thing cannot change its real nature.

(Prakasavacchavaiyarthyat III.2.15 (333) And as light (assumes forms as it were by its contact with things possessing form, so does Brahman take form in connection with Upadhis or limiting adjuncts), because (texts which ascribe form to Brahman) are not meaningless. )

Changes of its real nature means annihilation. Similarly in the case of Brahman, its connection with the limiting adjuncts like earth, etc., is due to ignorance. An Upadhi cannot affect the nature of Brahman, such Upadhi being merely due to Avidya or nescience. The essential character of a thing must always remain the same whatever may be the conditions imposed on it. If however it appears to be altered it is surely due to ignorance.

Therefore we may conjecture cautiously that Brahman is without attributes, because all Sruti texts whose aim is to represent the nature of Brahman such as "It is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay" (Katha Up. I.3.15) teach that It is free from all attributes.However, Brahman is basically a synethetical experience, insomuchas, to define specificites and have overlapping areas.

(Na bhedaditi chenna pratyekamatadvachanat III.2.12 (330) If it be said that it is not so on account of difference (being taught in the scriptures), we reply that it is not so, because with reference to each (such form), the Sruti declares the opposite of that. )

In otherwords a Baul would say(or should I say sing?) " Brahman is both form and formless and both without as Brahman is supreme and to define it in specific parameters is to confine the brilliance of sun in an earthern cup"

Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious worship of devotees; it is not Its real nature.

Now, let us see the arguments of Poorvapakshins,The Purvapakshin says, "The various Vidyas teach different forms of Brahman. It is said to have four feet (Chh. Up. III.18.2); to consist of sixteen parts or Kalas (Pras. Up. VI.1); to be characterised by dwarfishness (Katha Up. V.3); to have the three worlds for its body (Bri. Up. I.3.22); to be named Vaisvanara (Chh. Up. V.11.2), etc. Hence we must admit that Brahman is also qualified."

 

(source:spiritsong.org)

However,If Brahman be understood to have a form then the scriptural passages which describe it as formless would become meaningless. The scriptures have a purport all throughout. On the contrary, the other passages which refer to a Brahman qualified by form do not aim at setting forth the nature of Brahman but rather at enjoying the worship of Brahman.

The Brahma sutra thus divests each element which makes a specificity toward the ascribing nature of Brahman and lays it bare. Reading a Brahma sutra is not a mere intellectual exercise. In the past golden days of Dheesara, Gurus used to give the sutras to their disciples and ask them to meditate on ecah sutra for days to gain answers deepn in their souls...

Let us do something like that too, with our limitations of Ghorakaliyuga...

 

----

Question 2: 2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing of animal skin or sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas (vehicles)?

 

Ofcourse, spirituality and religion are filled symbology as that is the language of the subconscious mind. The substratum of the subconscious mind of a devotee does not understand words. But it does understand symbols,powerful symbols at that.

Shiva wears an elephant skin, to show that ego in the form an elephant has been subdued if viewed from one angle and in another angle that ego is a small sheath which covers one from our naked reality.

Imagine Durgadevi sitting on a Rabbit, what feelings does it evoke? WIll it have the same puissance as She is sitting on a Lion/tiger?W hat nuerological and subconsious images does it evoke?

 

I will give an example here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is Brahma shown as above seated on a Paramahamsa?(The great Swan)...The great swan is a bird which frequents Manasarovar on the earthly plane(now in China) and drinks just milk from a mixture of say milk and water.

In other words, the Brahman question you asked....

what was the milk?---Guru statement which I gave in the beginning.

What is the water?---The experential sutra-statements of someone else (nevertheless in Brahmasutra) I gave as a bolster.

The Paramahamsa flies, and yet is light....Brahman(realization)---will unburden you of your past baggages and make you ascend.

If you have seen swans fly, you will observe that its ascent is very smooth, very graceful, very effortless. One's ascent into spirituality is also like that ultimately, the vedas,vedantas.brahmasutras burden one's soul after a certain stage.Why does the Lord sit atop it with folded hands, it shows that one must be humble even though one has become a Paramahamsa, because everything ultimately dissolves in the Mahapralaya(the great cosmic dissolution).

The color of paramhamsa is white. What does white denote? White is a color which denotes purity in spirituality across many regions and communities because it is a commingling of all colors(sadly this has been taken by some ignorant people to skin level, which is the farthest from the truth).This does not mean white is a superior color over black. Black is found in Kali symbology and almost all deities in a yogic form.

Superiority is a terminology of the mind.It simply does not exist in the eyes of God. White is the abscence of darkness, the darkness of maya. Darkness and light both have a meaning, deep embedded brain meaning too at a gross and a subtle level, thus it aids a devotee seeking gnaana to meditate in a smooth fashion and thus acts as a aid to meditation.White paint (or a white coloured surface) is simply one that reflects all or most of the light hitting it and does so uniformly (does not favour any particular wavelengths). It may actually look red, green or black depending on what coloured light is hitting it, or no light at all. It is because the colour white reflects everything that white (or light coloured) fabrics are cooler in summer. White is taken as an aid for innocence which characterizes a true gnaani.

Thus a meditator is taken to a higher plane of Gnana when using such visual aids.

Animals evoke stronger feelings than human beings when trying to portray a raw image.A raw feeling is portrayed by an innocent animal better than a pretending human being.

---------------------------

3. Does soul remember its identity after realisation?

Going by the texts, No.

But this question cannot be answered, unless one experiences a relaization, and then a merging occurs and the memories will be lost.Thus there is no answer to this question. This too is an experential question.

 

 

(source:spiritsong.org)

In sandhyadhikaranam-Brahmasutras-one sutra says thus-

Dehayogadva so'pi III.2.6 (324) And that (viz., the concealment of the soul's rulership) also (results) from its connection with the body.

Such hiding of power is due to embodiment of the soul. The state of concealment of the soul's knowledge and Lordship is due to its being joined to a body, i.e., to a body, sense-organs, mind, intellect, sense-objects, sensations, etc., on account of ignorance. Just as fire is hidden in wood or ashes, the knowledge and power of the soul are hidden, though the Jiva is really the Supreme Lord. Hence the soul does not itself create. If it can, it will never create unpleasant dreams. No one ever wishes for something unpleasant to himself. The soul's knowledge and Lordship remain hidden as long as he erroneously thinks himself as the body, etc., as long as he is under the wrong notion of not being distinct from those limiting adjuncts.

When the individual soul enters Brahman in deep sleep, he/she enters like a pot full of salt water with covered mouth plunged into the Ganga. When he/she awakens from sleep it is the same pot taken out of the river with the same water in it. Similarly the individual soul enveloped by his/her desires goes to sleep and for the time being puts off all sense-activities and goes to the resting place namely, the Supreme Brahman and again comes out of it in order to get further experiences. He does not become identical with Brahman like the person who has obtained liberation. Thus we hear that the same soul which had gone to sleep awakes again into the same body.

Thus a soul which has realized fully never returns back to the body frame. That brings us to an interesting question of sudeha moksha(liberation within one's body)...which will be discussed later....

For now, let me rest my speeding fingers...

Yours yogically,

Shreeram Balijepalli

 

Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , "raghuvenkataj" <raghuvenkataj wrote:>> Dear Sir,> I have three queries,> 1. How does one understand the form and formless attributes of Bhraman> 2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing of animal skin or > sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas (vehicles).> 3. Does soul remember its identity after realisation> Regards,> Raghu Venkata.>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

First let me thank you for the exhaustive

(image+chart+description+references) explanation.

 

Before you read further, I request you to charge your patience and

bear my meek queries and observations.

 

Look-like the form and formless attribute leading to anology of

quantum mechanics (probability,entanglement..neils bohr) and atomic

physics (reality, actuality..Albeter Einstien) which are true at

different instances of time. Ofcourse spiritual understanding is

entirely different and one has to experience to understand as you

have put it rightly.

 

In earlier days I used to think one who has realised cannot exist in

the physical world (exception of 1,2,3..10 cases) and one who exists

is yet to realise. (I may be wrong now..still contemplation is

required)

 

 

The below explanation has given more room for contemplation which

would take some time to digest.

Now I have more thoughts generated, hope you can clarify them.

 

" However, Brahman is basically a synethetical experience,

insomuchas, to define specificites and have overlapping areas "

 

1. Can you throw more light on the above sutra

 

 

" In otherwords a Baul would say(or should I say sing?) " Brahman is

both form and formless and both without as Brahman is supreme and to

define it in specific parameters is to confine the brilliance of

sun in an earthern cup " "

 

2. Recently I was informed that both form and formless Bhraman occur

simaltaneously but again contradictly I was told the formless

attribute comes out of the form attribute..not sure now

 

" Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious

worship of devotees; it is not Its real nature. "

 

3. The above statement answers partially to query 2 above.

 

 

" On the contrary, the other passages which refer to a Brahman

qualified by form do not aim at setting forth the nature of Brahman

but rather at enjoying the worship of Brahman. "

 

4. Worship of Bhraman or would it be Service to Brhman

 

 

" One must be humble even though one has become a Paramahamsa,

because everything ultimately dissolves in the Mahapralaya(the great

cosmic dissolution). "

 

5. Does cosmic dissolution occur ! The time frame suggested in the

Kalpa are so huge

 

" Darkness and light both have a meaning, deep embedded brain meaning

too at a gross and a subtle level, thus it aids a devotee seeking

gnaana to meditate in a smooth fashion and thus acts as a aid to

meditation "

 

 

6. I have some understanding here..i may be wrong. Dark is

nothing/empty-ness or (blank or void) and Light is something

occupying the empty-ness(oxford will faint, when they this

word)..then the primary question how did the light occur. And

understanding of black holes give a different meaning (i think i got

diverted)

 

" Just as fire is hidden in wood or ashes, the knowledge and power of

the soul are hidden, though the Jiva is really the Supreme Lord. "

 

7. The above sutra is really making mind rush, fire can be hidden in

wood because it can burn but ashes is output of burnt wood, would it

mean that ashes equals to wood+fire ??

and could you put some more light on JIVA and SOUL

 

 

" Hence the soul does not itself create. If it can, it will never

create unpleasant dreams. No one ever wishes for something

unpleasant to himself. The soul's knowledge and Lordship remain

hidden as long as he erroneously thinks himself as the body, etc.,

as long as he is under the wrong notion of not being distinct from

those limiting adjuncts. "

 

8. I am lost

 

" When the individual soul enters Brahman in deep sleep, he/she

enters like a pot full of salt water with covered mouth plunged into

the Ganga. When he/she awakens from sleep it is the same pot taken

out of the river with the same water in it. Similarly the individual

soul enveloped by his/her desires goes to sleep and for the time

being puts off all sense-activities and goes to the resting place

namely, the Supreme Brahman and again comes out of it in order to

get further experiences. He does not become identical with Brahman

like the person who has obtained liberation. Thus we hear that the

same soul which had gone to sleep awakes again into the same body. "

 

 

9. Does the above statement mean soul which was of pot and salt

water and after returning the sould would be pot+ganga water

 

" Thus a soul which has realized fully never returns back to the body

frame. That brings us to an interesting question of sudeha moksha

(liberation within one's body)...which will be discussed later.... "

 

10.Waiting eagerly.

 

Few more thoughts

 

11. Is there a difference between knowing (here i mean knowledge of)

the self and realising the self

 

12. I understand there lies a interface between been Energy

(vibration) and Matter and Gravity (understand this also form of

force/energy)..does it exist. If exist, there should be a process

(ok ok, i will stop here)

 

I hope I have not drained out your patience. Please let me know

whenever you get a chance !!

 

Regards,

Raghu Venkata.

 

Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " para_anuloma "

<para_anuloma wrote:

>

>

> Question 1: How does one understand the form and formless

attributes of

> Brahman?

>

>

>

>

> First, before I err on the ground of intellectualism, I should say

that

> this question too is an experential thing.To put it in a few

words " The

> way to understand Brahman is at the Feet of one's Gurunatha, for

He is

> the sole Brahman, The sole reality "

>

> This time since I have not drunk any Cranberry juice nor am I

sane, let

> me answer this question...

>

> The statement which I made about Gurunatha is the sole truth and

the

> answer for all spiritual questions, it is the basic template, rest

of

> what I say below is just an embelishment to that supreme thought.

To be

> honest with you I know nothing sir as I have not realized anything

nor

> am I in at-one-ness with anything. However, I will ramble on...

>

> The sutrakara of Brahma sutra says at Ubhayalingaadhikaranam thus:

>

> Na sthanato'pi parasyobhayalingam sarvatra hi III.2.11 (329)

> Not on account of (difference of) place also two-fold

> characteristics can belong to the Highest; for everywhere scripture

> teaches It to be without any difference.

>

> Though scripture should never be the sole basis of understanding

> Brahman, it can be viewed later after a meditative

> experience.Brahmasutras are " pithy threaded statements " (sutras)

penned

> by experential seers. If you realize, you too can write such a

> " sutra " .In the scriptures we find two kinds of description about

> Brahman.

>

> Some texts describe it as qualified, i.e., with attributes(form as

you

> put it) and some as unqualified (without attributes). " From whom

all

> activities, all desires, all odours and all tastes proceed " (Chh.

Up.

> III.14.2). This text speaks of form and attributes innuendo.

>

> Then Again we have, " It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short

nor

> long, neither redness nor moisture " etc. (Bri. Up. III.8.8). This

text

> speaks of Brahman without attributes.

>

> So now we are thrown into confusion here, are we to assume that

both are

> true of Brahman according as it is or is not connected with

limiting

> adjuncts or Upadhis or have we to assume only one of them as true

and

> the other false? and if so, which is true? and why it is true?

>

> This Sutra says that the Highest Brahman cannot by itself possess

two

> characteristics. In the case of Brahman you cannot say that it has

two

> aspects, viz., with form and attributes, and without form and

> attributes, i.e., with Upadhis (limiting adjuncts) and without

Upadhis,

> because It is described everywhere as being Nirguna (without

> attributes). Both cannot be predicated of one and the same Brahman

> because it is against experience. One and the same thing cannot

have two

> contradictory natures at the same time.This is against even a basic

> Tarkawada positation.

>

> In essence, Brahman cannot at the same time have form and be

formless.

> The yellowness of a lamp reflected in a crystal does not change the

> nature of the crystal which is colourless. Even so the mere

connection

> of a thing with another does not change its nature. It is an

altogether

> erroneous notion to impute yellowness to the crystal. In other

words the

> yellowness of the crystal is unreal. A thing cannot change its real

> nature.

>

> (Prakasavacchavaiyarthyat III.2.15 (333)

> And as light (assumes forms as it were by its contact with

things

> possessing form, so does Brahman take form in connection with

Upadhis or

> limiting adjuncts), because (texts which ascribe form to Brahman)

are

> not meaningless. )

>

> Changes of its real nature means annihilation. Similarly in the

case of

> Brahman, its connection with the limiting adjuncts like earth,

etc., is

> due to ignorance. An Upadhi cannot affect the nature of Brahman,

such

> Upadhi being merely due to Avidya or nescience. The essential

character

> of a thing must always remain the same whatever may be the

conditions

> imposed on it. If however it appears to be altered it is surely

due to

> ignorance.

>

> Therefore we may conjecture cautiously that Brahman is without

> attributes, because all Sruti texts whose aim is to represent the

nature

> of Brahman such as " It is without sound, without touch, without

form,

> without decay " (Katha Up. I.3.15) teach that It is free from all

> attributes.However, Brahman is basically a synethetical experience,

> insomuchas, to define specificites and have overlapping areas.

>

> (Na bhedaditi chenna pratyekamatadvachanat III.2.12 (330)

> If it be said that it is not so on account of difference

(being

> taught in the scriptures), we reply that it is not so, because with

> reference to each (such form), the Sruti declares the opposite of

that.

> )

>

> In otherwords a Baul would say(or should I say sing?) " Brahman is

both

> form and formless and both without as Brahman is supreme and to

define

> it in specific parameters is to confine the brilliance of sun in

an

> earthern cup "

>

> Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious

worship

> of devotees; it is not Its real nature.

>

> Now, let us see the arguments of Poorvapakshins,The Purvapakshin

says,

> " The various Vidyas teach different forms of Brahman. It is said

to have

> four feet (Chh. Up. III.18.2); to consist of sixteen parts or Kalas

> (Pras. Up. VI.1); to be characterised by dwarfishness (Katha Up.

V.3);

> to have the three worlds for its body (Bri. Up. I.3.22); to be

named

> Vaisvanara (Chh. Up. V.11.2), etc. Hence we must admit that

Brahman is

> also qualified. "

>

> [Figure 3. Yoga Psychology]

>

> (source:spiritsong.org)

>

> However,If Brahman be understood to have a form then the scriptural

> passages which describe it as formless would become meaningless.

The

> scriptures have a purport all throughout. On the contrary, the

other

> passages which refer to a Brahman qualified by form do not aim at

> setting forth the nature of Brahman but rather at enjoying the

worship

> of Brahman.

>

> The Brahma sutra thus divests each element which makes a

specificity

> toward the ascribing nature of Brahman and lays it bare. Reading a

> Brahma sutra is not a mere intellectual exercise. In the past

golden

> days of Dheesara, Gurus used to give the sutras to their disciples

and

> ask them to meditate on ecah sutra for days to gain answers deepn

in

> their souls...

>

> Let us do something like that too, with our limitations of

> Ghorakaliyuga...

>

>

>

> -

---

>

> Question 2: 2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing of

animal

> skin or

> sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas (vehicles)?

>

>

>

> Ofcourse, spirituality and religion are filled symbology as that

is the

> language of the subconscious mind. The substratum of the

subconscious

> mind of a devotee does not understand words. But it does understand

> symbols,powerful symbols at that.

>

> Shiva wears an elephant skin, to show that ego in the form an

elephant

> has been subdued if viewed from one angle and in another angle

that ego

> is a small sheath which covers one from our naked reality.

>

> Imagine Durgadevi sitting on a Rabbit, what feelings does it

evoke? WIll

> it have the same puissance as She is sitting on a Lion/tiger?W hat

> nuerological and subconsious images does it evoke?

>

>

>

> I will give an example here.

>

> <http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/hindu/hindudeities>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Why is Brahma shown as above seated on a Paramahamsa?(The great

> Swan)...The great swan is a bird which frequents Manasarovar on the

> earthly plane(now in China) and drinks just milk from a mixture of

say

> milk and water.

>

> In other words, the Brahman question you asked....

>

> what was the milk?---Guru statement which I gave in the beginning.

>

> What is the water?---The experential sutra-statements of someone

else

> (nevertheless in Brahmasutra) I gave as a bolster.

>

> The Paramahamsa flies, and yet is light....Brahman(realization)---

will

> unburden you of your past baggages and make you ascend.

>

> If you have seen swans fly, you will observe that its ascent is

very

> smooth, very graceful, very effortless. One's ascent into

spirituality

> is also like that ultimately, the vedas,vedantas.brahmasutras

burden

> one's soul after a certain stage.Why does the Lord sit atop it with

> folded hands, it shows that one must be humble even though one has

> become a Paramahamsa, because everything ultimately dissolves in

the

> Mahapralaya(the great cosmic dissolution).

>

> The color of paramhamsa is white. What does white denote? White is

a

> color which denotes purity in spirituality across many regions and

> communities because it is a commingling of all colors(sadly this

has

> been taken by some ignorant people to skin level, which is the

farthest

> from the truth).This does not mean white is a superior color over

black.

> Black is found in Kali symbology and almost all deities in a yogic

form.

>

> Superiority is a terminology of the mind.It simply does not exist

in the

> eyes of God. White is the abscence of darkness, the darkness of

maya.

> Darkness and light both have a meaning, deep embedded brain

meaning too

> at a gross and a subtle level, thus it aids a devotee seeking

gnaana to

> meditate in a smooth fashion and thus acts as a aid to

meditation.White

> paint (or a white coloured surface) is simply one that reflects

all or

> most of the light hitting it and does so uniformly (does not

favour any

> particular wavelengths). It may actually look red, green or black

> depending on what coloured light is hitting it, or no light at

all. It

> is because the colour white reflects everything that white (or

light

> coloured) fabrics are cooler in summer. White is taken as an aid

for

> innocence which characterizes a true gnaani.

>

> Thus a meditator is taken to a higher plane of Gnana when using

such

> visual aids.

>

> Animals evoke stronger feelings than human beings when trying to

portray

> a raw image.A raw feeling is portrayed by an innocent animal

better than

> a pretending human being.

>

> -

-----\

>

>

> 3. Does soul remember its identity after realisation?

>

> Going by the texts, No.

>

> But this question cannot be answered, unless one experiences a

> relaization, and then a merging occurs and the memories will be

> lost.Thus there is no answer to this question. This too is an

> experential question.

>

> [Figure 4. Antahkarana]

>

>

>

> (source:spiritsong.org)

>

> In sandhyadhikaranam-Brahmasutras-one sutra says thus-

>

> Dehayogadva so'pi III.2.6 (324)

> And that (viz., the concealment of the soul's rulership)

also

> (results) from its connection with the body.

>

> Such hiding of power is due to embodiment of the soul. The state of

> concealment of the soul's knowledge and Lordship is due to its

being

> joined to a body, i.e., to a body, sense-organs, mind, intellect,

> sense-objects, sensations, etc., on account of ignorance. Just as

fire

> is hidden in wood or ashes, the knowledge and power of the soul are

> hidden, though the Jiva is really the Supreme Lord. Hence the soul

does

> not itself create. If it can, it will never create unpleasant

dreams. No

> one ever wishes for something unpleasant to himself. The soul's

> knowledge and Lordship remain hidden as long as he erroneously

thinks

> himself as the body, etc., as long as he is under the wrong notion

of

> not being distinct from those limiting adjuncts.

>

> When the individual soul enters Brahman in deep sleep, he/she

enters

> like a pot full of salt water with covered mouth plunged into the

Ganga.

> When he/she awakens from sleep it is the same pot taken out of the

river

> with the same water in it. Similarly the individual soul enveloped

by

> his/her desires goes to sleep and for the time being puts off all

> sense-activities and goes to the resting place namely, the Supreme

> Brahman and again comes out of it in order to get further

experiences.

> He does not become identical with Brahman like the person who has

> obtained liberation. Thus we hear that the same soul which had

gone to

> sleep awakes again into the same body.

>

> Thus a soul which has realized fully never returns back to the body

> frame. That brings us to an interesting question of sudeha

> moksha(liberation within one's body)...which will be discussed

later....

>

> For now, let me rest my speeding fingers...

>

> Yours yogically,

>

> Shreeram Balijepalli

>

>

>

> Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " raghuvenkataj "

> <raghuvenkataj@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sir,

> > I have three queries,

> > 1. How does one understand the form and formless attributes of

Bhraman

> > 2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing of animal skin

or

> > sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas (vehicles).

> > 3. Does soul remember its identity after realisation

> > Regards,

> > Raghu Venkata.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

See replies below in violet color...

Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , "raghuvenkataj" <raghuvenkataj wrote:>> Dear Sir,> First let me thank you for the exhaustive > (image+chart+description+references) explanation. > > Before you read further, I request you to charge your patience and > bear my meek queries and observations.> > Look-like the form and formless attribute leading to anology of > quantum mechanics (probability,entanglement..neils bohr) and atomic > physics (reality, actuality..Albeter Einstien) which are true at > different instances of time. Ofcourse spiritual understanding is > entirely different and one has to experience to understand as you > have put it rightly.> > In earlier days I used to think one who has realised cannot exist in > the physical world (exception of 1,2,3..10 cases) and one who exists > is yet to realise. (I may be wrong now..still contemplation is > required)

Thinking will never produce any answer on such experential questions.Deep meditation wher you forget yourself, where the knower, the known and the to-be-known becomes one will give you the answer.

Your mind is on a logical run so, how many times, I might answer your questions, new questions will sprout from them. Tatwa shuddhi is necessary before adhyaatmika vichara.

> > > The below explanation has given more room for contemplation which > would take some time to digest. > Now I have more thoughts generated, hope you can clarify them.> > "However, Brahman is basically a synethetical experience, > insomuchas, to define specificites and have overlapping areas"> > 1. Can you throw more light on the above sutra

That was not a sutra just my statement. Synesthetical experience grossly defined might mean the taste of colors, the smell of music,etc. These are called synesthetical experiences. Geniuses are inborn with such a synesthetic mind. To expereince Brahman one must have a synesthetic experience of both form and formless and thus to say this is that and that is this especially for something which exists everywhere and is in everything is an asinine venture to say the least.

Who am I define or understand the vastness of Paramamvyoman?When even the Milkyway is not even a speck in its grandeur!> > > "In otherwords a Baul would say(or should I say sing?) " Brahman is > both form and formless and both without as Brahman is supreme and to > define it in specific parameters is to confine the brilliance of > sun in an earthern cup""> > 2. Recently I was informed that both form and formless Bhraman occur > simaltaneously but again contradictly I was told the formless > attribute comes out of the form attribute..not sure now

 

It is similar to the wave-particle duality. Light is both wave and matter, and some scientists view it as just matter. It depends on the purpose of the experiment.Because waves are non-local, all objects are, in theory, non-local, too (exist in many places at once) . The reason we can't detect wave properties of macroscopic particles is their small wavelength. This does not make a wave bereft of its dual nature.

There is always a danger of analogies, because when we compare Brahman with wave-particle duality we are again confining oursleevs within parochial parameters.This is not called for.> > "Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious > worship of devotees; it is not Its real nature."> > 3. The above statement answers partially to query 2 above.

 

Yes, it answers your question specifically as emnated form you. Experiential questions are to answered with the subject(here Raghu Venkata) in question. To an upasaka I would say the opposite.Infact the Brahma Sutras always talk in contradictions, in a diabolical manner. For in thbese contradictions lie some truth.

Contradictory truth-quite an oxymoron! eh?> > > "On the contrary, the other passages which refer to a Brahman > qualified by form do not aim at setting forth the nature of Brahman > but rather at enjoying the worship of Brahman."> > 4. Worship of Bhraman or would it be Service to Brhman

Worship of Brahman and service of Brahman mean the samething. You serve the Brahman(dont confuse with a Brahmin-which is a casteist appelation given sadly these days to people born in that caste whereas in the Vedic period it was used for those who were in search of the ephemeral Brahman)

When you worship you serve the Lord, when you serve, you worship the Lord.

> > > "One must be humble even though one has become a Paramahamsa, > because everything ultimately dissolves in the Mahapralaya(the great > cosmic dissolution)."> > 5. Does cosmic dissolution occur ! The time frame suggested in the > Kalpa are so huge

Time frames are huge, but still they are time frames and one day they end. Thus time too is a falsity.It is a flow in itself, where you oppose it or go wth it, you will end with it too.> > "Darkness and light both have a meaning, deep embedded brain meaning > too at a gross and a subtle level, thus it aids a devotee seeking > gnaana to meditate in a smooth fashion and thus acts as a aid to > meditation"> > > 6. I have some understanding here..i may be wrong. Dark is > nothing/empty-ness or (blank or void) and Light is something > occupying the empty-ness(oxford will faint, when they this > word)..then the primary question how did the light occur. And > understanding of black holes give a different meaning (i think i got > diverted)

Yes, your logical mind did get diverted here again falling into the analogy trap.You will do good to read an old manula on logical thinking called "Crooked thinking and Straight thinking" By Robert Thouless, he explains there how analogies are very dangerous in nature to support or deport and argument.

Ultimately, Brahman does not need the crutch of arguments. It stays in itself full and ripe.Poornamidam, Poornamadah, Poornaaath, Poornamudhachyathe'....> > "Just as fire is hidden in wood or ashes, the knowledge and power of > the soul are hidden, though the Jiva is really the Supreme Lord."> > 7. The above sutra is really making mind rush, fire can be hidden in > wood because it can burn but ashes is output of burnt wood, would it > mean that ashes equals to wood+fire ?? > and could you put some more light on JIVA and SOUL

Yes, ashes can be said to be fire+wood and it can go on and on....the ashes again merge in earth and becomes soil, thus soil becomes ashes+wood+fire and thus to infinity till it comes to the fire again! It is all cyclical and logical circularity poses lot of despondency for the mind again here.There is no point in answering circular questions. One has to break it and come out.> > > "Hence the soul does not itself create. If it can, it will never > create unpleasant dreams. No one ever wishes for something > unpleasant to himself. The soul's knowledge and Lordship remain > hidden as long as he erroneously thinks himself as the body, etc., > as long as he is under the wrong notion of not being distinct from > those limiting adjuncts."> > 8. I am lost

That was the basic nature of Athman in you and in me which is always for God and is God.Thus I was explaning the dream state there and how Athamn is hidden in the sheath of Ahamkara(which includes intellecutal exercises).> > "When the individual soul enters Brahman in deep sleep, he/she > enters like a pot full of salt water with covered mouth plunged into > the Ganga. When he/she awakens from sleep it is the same pot taken > out of the river with the same water in it. Similarly the individual > soul enveloped by his/her desires goes to sleep and for the time > being puts off all sense-activities and goes to the resting place > namely, the Supreme Brahman and again comes out of it in order to > get further experiences. He does not become identical with Brahman > like the person who has obtained liberation. Thus we hear that the > same soul which had gone to sleep awakes again into the same body. "> > > 9. Does the above statement mean soul which was of pot and salt > water and after returning the sould would be pot+ganga water

You have not understood soul nor my analogy here.

First your misunderstanding:

Soul is forever pure, it does not need a "merging" in Ganga to keep it pure. It doe snot need a "battery-charging".

Second, in my analogy, I did not mean, dipping the pot fully into the ganges but just till the rim in a perfunctory manner(not taking into count any osmotic water seeping into the earthen pot from ganges) and thus the salt water remains salt water though plunged into ganga. The analogy concentrates on the earthen pot which is the body, the ahamkara and not as much as the saltwater or the ganga. Again a danger in anology.> > "Thus a soul which has realized fully never returns back to the body > frame. That brings us to an interesting question of sudeha moksha> (liberation within one's body)...which will be discussed later...."> > 10.Waiting eagerly.> > Few more thoughts> > 11. Is there a difference between knowing (here i mean knowledge of) > the self and realising the self

Realising the self means knowing, there is no difference. With knowledge powers seep in automatically. One swami said to me some stories after reading a few books by Vivekananda that one should not hanker after powers and that if powers come they should reject it during meditation.

I said "OK, that is a magnificient attitude toward spiritual development. What era you after then? God or Gnaana?"

Then the person answered me "Gnaana ofcourse"

I asked him, "Did you get it?"

He said "yes, that is why Iam a swami"

I said"very well, show me some miracle now"

He said "there you go again, how can i show you a miracle when i rejected all powers and got gnaana"

He did not get it. The moment you get Gnaana, you realize the power of soul and thus all of the soul's powers will comeforth. This is known in one esoteric tantra(Krauncha Tantra) as Bhasmadhultiha.Like the ashes which surround a an elephant after its bath, it is momentary till the gnaana is acheived. The moment the elephant(ego) comes to the shore, it pours mud and after the mud it shakes the body, the elephant body again emerges.The soul's power is like that. Gnaana is like the mud, it acts as a catalyst to the power of soul. However, since again there is a weaknes sof the analogy I used, I have to extend and say, it is essentially the same.

A person with Gnaana wil be filled with Varchas and will have enormous power. Some swamis after doing purascharanas of mantras appear to have a dazzle, which many foolish people called brahmavarchas(ha! great joke, so brahma varchas has become so cheap, a few round sof rosary and you get it?!!..pitiable state of affairs)....that dazzle is the mantric fire which emantes form the body, the aura is clean and thus dazzles, thats all.

To cut a long story short-Essentially there is no difference. It is not some knwoledge on a mental level(I know that is what you had in your mind). Gnaana is somehting more than mere gross intelligence or "understanding" something. It is being that, verily, being that.

> > 12. I understand there lies a interface between been Energy> (vibration) and Matter and Gravity (understand this also form of > force/energy)..does it exist. If exist, there should be a process > (ok ok, i will stop here)

 

There is no interface between energy,matter and gravity. Essentially it is all the same expressed in different dimensions thats all.(I too will stop here)> > I hope I have not drained out your patience. Please let me know > whenever you get a chance !!

Hope this helps(further confuse you, hehe!)

 

Yours Yogically,

 

Shreeram Balijepalli

> > Regards,> Raghu Venkata.> > Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , "para_anuloma" > para_anuloma@ wrote:> >> > > > Question 1: How does one understand the form and formless > attributes of> > Brahman?> > > > > > > > > > First, before I err on the ground of intellectualism, I should say > that> > this question too is an experential thing.To put it in a few > words "The> > way to understand Brahman is at the Feet of one's Gurunatha, for > He is> > the sole Brahman, The sole reality"> > > > This time since I have not drunk any Cranberry juice nor am I > sane, let> > me answer this question...> > > > The statement which I made about Gurunatha is the sole truth and > the> > answer for all spiritual questions, it is the basic template, rest > of> > what I say below is just an embelishment to that supreme thought. > To be> > honest with you I know nothing sir as I have not realized anything > nor> > am I in at-one-ness with anything. However, I will ramble on...> > > > The sutrakara of Brahma sutra says at Ubhayalingaadhikaranam thus:> > > > Na sthanato'pi parasyobhayalingam sarvatra hi III.2.11 (329)> > Not on account of (difference of) place also two-fold> > characteristics can belong to the Highest; for everywhere scripture> > teaches It to be without any difference.> > > > Though scripture should never be the sole basis of understanding> > Brahman, it can be viewed later after a meditative> > experience.Brahmasutras are "pithy threaded statements"(sutras) > penned> > by experential seers. If you realize, you too can write such a> > "sutra".In the scriptures we find two kinds of description about> > Brahman.> > > > Some texts describe it as qualified, i.e., with attributes(form as > you> > put it) and some as unqualified (without attributes). "From whom > all> > activities, all desires, all odours and all tastes proceed" (Chh. > Up.> > III.14.2). This text speaks of form and attributes innuendo.> > > > Then Again we have, "It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short > nor> > long, neither redness nor moisture" etc. (Bri. Up. III.8.8). This > text> > speaks of Brahman without attributes.> > > > So now we are thrown into confusion here, are we to assume that > both are> > true of Brahman according as it is or is not connected with > limiting> > adjuncts or Upadhis or have we to assume only one of them as true > and> > the other false? and if so, which is true? and why it is true?> > > > This Sutra says that the Highest Brahman cannot by itself possess > two> > characteristics. In the case of Brahman you cannot say that it has > two> > aspects, viz., with form and attributes, and without form and> > attributes, i.e., with Upadhis (limiting adjuncts) and without > Upadhis,> > because It is described everywhere as being Nirguna (without> > attributes). Both cannot be predicated of one and the same Brahman> > because it is against experience. One and the same thing cannot > have two> > contradictory natures at the same time.This is against even a basic> > Tarkawada positation.> > > > In essence, Brahman cannot at the same time have form and be > formless.> > The yellowness of a lamp reflected in a crystal does not change the> > nature of the crystal which is colourless. Even so the mere > connection> > of a thing with another does not change its nature. It is an > altogether> > erroneous notion to impute yellowness to the crystal. In other > words the> > yellowness of the crystal is unreal. A thing cannot change its real> > nature.> > > > (Prakasavacchavaiyarthyat III.2.15 (333)> > And as light (assumes forms as it were by its contact with > things> > possessing form, so does Brahman take form in connection with > Upadhis or> > limiting adjuncts), because (texts which ascribe form to Brahman) > are> > not meaningless. )> > > > Changes of its real nature means annihilation. Similarly in the > case of> > Brahman, its connection with the limiting adjuncts like earth, > etc., is> > due to ignorance. An Upadhi cannot affect the nature of Brahman, > such> > Upadhi being merely due to Avidya or nescience. The essential > character> > of a thing must always remain the same whatever may be the > conditions> > imposed on it. If however it appears to be altered it is surely > due to> > ignorance.> > > > Therefore we may conjecture cautiously that Brahman is without> > attributes, because all Sruti texts whose aim is to represent the > nature> > of Brahman such as "It is without sound, without touch, without > form,> > without decay" (Katha Up. I.3.15) teach that It is free from all> > attributes.However, Brahman is basically a synethetical experience,> > insomuchas, to define specificites and have overlapping areas.> > > > (Na bhedaditi chenna pratyekamatadvachanat III.2.12 (330)> > If it be said that it is not so on account of difference > (being> > taught in the scriptures), we reply that it is not so, because with> > reference to each (such form), the Sruti declares the opposite of > that.> > )> > > > In otherwords a Baul would say(or should I say sing?) " Brahman is > both> > form and formless and both without as Brahman is supreme and to > define> > it in specific parameters is to confine the brilliance of sun in > an> > earthern cup"> > > > Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious > worship> > of devotees; it is not Its real nature.> > > > Now, let us see the arguments of Poorvapakshins,The Purvapakshin > says,> > "The various Vidyas teach different forms of Brahman. It is said > to have> > four feet (Chh. Up. III.18.2); to consist of sixteen parts or Kalas> > (Pras. Up. VI.1); to be characterised by dwarfishness (Katha Up. > V.3);> > to have the three worlds for its body (Bri. Up. I.3.22); to be > named> > Vaisvanara (Chh. Up. V.11.2), etc. Hence we must admit that > Brahman is> > also qualified."> > > > [Figure 3. Yoga Psychology]> > > > (source:spiritsong.org)> > > > However,If Brahman be understood to have a form then the scriptural> > passages which describe it as formless would become meaningless. > The> > scriptures have a purport all throughout. On the contrary, the > other> > passages which refer to a Brahman qualified by form do not aim at> > setting forth the nature of Brahman but rather at enjoying the > worship> > of Brahman.> > > > The Brahma sutra thus divests each element which makes a > specificity> > toward the ascribing nature of Brahman and lays it bare. Reading a> > Brahma sutra is not a mere intellectual exercise. In the past > golden> > days of Dheesara, Gurus used to give the sutras to their disciples > and> > ask them to meditate on ecah sutra for days to gain answers deepn > in> > their souls...> > > > Let us do something like that too, with our limitations of> > Ghorakaliyuga...> > > > > > > > -> ---> > > > Question 2: 2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing of > animal> > skin or> > sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas (vehicles)?> > > > > > > > Ofcourse, spirituality and religion are filled symbology as that > is the> > language of the subconscious mind. The substratum of the > subconscious> > mind of a devotee does not understand words. But it does understand> > symbols,powerful symbols at that.> > > > Shiva wears an elephant skin, to show that ego in the form an > elephant> > has been subdued if viewed from one angle and in another angle > that ego> > is a small sheath which covers one from our naked reality.> > > > Imagine Durgadevi sitting on a Rabbit, what feelings does it > evoke? WIll> > it have the same puissance as She is sitting on a Lion/tiger?W hat> > nuerological and subconsious images does it evoke?> > > > > > > > I will give an example here.> > > > <http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/hindu/hindudeities>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is Brahma shown as above seated on a Paramahamsa?(The great> > Swan)...The great swan is a bird which frequents Manasarovar on the> > earthly plane(now in China) and drinks just milk from a mixture of > say> > milk and water.> > > > In other words, the Brahman question you asked....> > > > what was the milk?---Guru statement which I gave in the beginning.> > > > What is the water?---The experential sutra-statements of someone > else> > (nevertheless in Brahmasutra) I gave as a bolster.> > > > The Paramahamsa flies, and yet is light....Brahman(realization)---> will> > unburden you of your past baggages and make you ascend.> > > > If you have seen swans fly, you will observe that its ascent is > very> > smooth, very graceful, very effortless. One's ascent into > spirituality> > is also like that ultimately, the vedas,vedantas.brahmasutras > burden> > one's soul after a certain stage.Why does the Lord sit atop it with> > folded hands, it shows that one must be humble even though one has> > become a Paramahamsa, because everything ultimately dissolves in > the> > Mahapralaya(the great cosmic dissolution).> > > > The color of paramhamsa is white. What does white denote? White is > a> > color which denotes purity in spirituality across many regions and> > communities because it is a commingling of all colors(sadly this > has> > been taken by some ignorant people to skin level, which is the > farthest> > from the truth).This does not mean white is a superior color over > black.> > Black is found in Kali symbology and almost all deities in a yogic > form.> > > > Superiority is a terminology of the mind.It simply does not exist > in the> > eyes of God. White is the abscence of darkness, the darkness of > maya.> > Darkness and light both have a meaning, deep embedded brain > meaning too> > at a gross and a subtle level, thus it aids a devotee seeking > gnaana to> > meditate in a smooth fashion and thus acts as a aid to > meditation.White> > paint (or a white coloured surface) is simply one that reflects > all or> > most of the light hitting it and does so uniformly (does not > favour any> > particular wavelengths). It may actually look red, green or black> > depending on what coloured light is hitting it, or no light at > all. It> > is because the colour white reflects everything that white (or > light> > coloured) fabrics are cooler in summer. White is taken as an aid > for> > innocence which characterizes a true gnaani.> > > > Thus a meditator is taken to a higher plane of Gnana when using > such> > visual aids.> > > > Animals evoke stronger feelings than human beings when trying to > portray> > a raw image.A raw feeling is portrayed by an innocent animal > better than> > a pretending human being.> > > > -> -----\> > > > > > 3. Does soul remember its identity after realisation?> > > > Going by the texts, No.> > > > But this question cannot be answered, unless one experiences a> > relaization, and then a merging occurs and the memories will be> > lost.Thus there is no answer to this question. This too is an> > experential question.> > > > [Figure 4. Antahkarana]> > > > > > > > (source:spiritsong.org)> > > > In sandhyadhikaranam-Brahmasutras-one sutra says thus-> > > > Dehayogadva so'pi III.2.6 (324)> > And that (viz., the concealment of the soul's rulership) > also> > (results) from its connection with the body.> > > > Such hiding of power is due to embodiment of the soul. The state of> > concealment of the soul's knowledge and Lordship is due to its > being> > joined to a body, i.e., to a body, sense-organs, mind, intellect,> > sense-objects, sensations, etc., on account of ignorance. Just as > fire> > is hidden in wood or ashes, the knowledge and power of the soul are> > hidden, though the Jiva is really the Supreme Lord. Hence the soul > does> > not itself create. If it can, it will never create unpleasant > dreams. No> > one ever wishes for something unpleasant to himself. The soul's> > knowledge and Lordship remain hidden as long as he erroneously > thinks> > himself as the body, etc., as long as he is under the wrong notion > of> > not being distinct from those limiting adjuncts.> > > > When the individual soul enters Brahman in deep sleep, he/she > enters> > like a pot full of salt water with covered mouth plunged into the > Ganga.> > When he/she awakens from sleep it is the same pot taken out of the > river> > with the same water in it. Similarly the individual soul enveloped > by> > his/her desires goes to sleep and for the time being puts off all> > sense-activities and goes to the resting place namely, the Supreme> > Brahman and again comes out of it in order to get further > experiences.> > He does not become identical with Brahman like the person who has> > obtained liberation. Thus we hear that the same soul which had > gone to> > sleep awakes again into the same body.> > > > Thus a soul which has realized fully never returns back to the body> > frame. That brings us to an interesting question of sudeha> > moksha(liberation within one's body)...which will be discussed > later....> > > > For now, let me rest my speeding fingers...> > > > Yours yogically,> > > > Shreeram Balijepalli> > > > > > > > Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , "raghuvenkataj"> > <raghuvenkataj@> wrote:> > >> > > Dear Sir,> > > I have three queries,> > > 1. How does one understand the form and formless attributes of > Bhraman> > > 2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing of animal skin > or> > > sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas (vehicles).> > > 3. Does soul remember its identity after realisation> > > Regards,> > > Raghu Venkata.> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

 

Thanks again for the clarifications. Though I have some queries but

I will be silent till such time !!!!

 

Regards,

Raghu Venkata.

 

 

Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " para_anuloma "

<para_anuloma wrote:

>

>

> See replies below in violet color...

>

>

> Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " raghuvenkataj "

> <raghuvenkataj@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sir,

> > First let me thank you for the exhaustive

> > (image+chart+description+references) explanation.

> >

> > Before you read further, I request you to charge your patience

and

> > bear my meek queries and observations.

> >

> > Look-like the form and formless attribute leading to anology of

> > quantum mechanics (probability,entanglement..neils bohr) and

atomic

> > physics (reality, actuality..Albeter Einstien) which are true at

> > different instances of time. Ofcourse spiritual understanding is

> > entirely different and one has to experience to understand as you

> > have put it rightly.

> >

> > In earlier days I used to think one who has realised cannot

exist in

> > the physical world (exception of 1,2,3..10 cases) and one who

exists

> > is yet to realise. (I may be wrong now..still contemplation is

> > required)

>

> Thinking will never produce any answer on such experential

> questions.Deep meditation wher you forget yourself, where the

knower,

> the known and the to-be-known becomes one will give you the answer.

>

> Your mind is on a logical run so, how many times, I might answer

your

> questions, new questions will sprout from them. Tatwa shuddhi is

> necessary before adhyaatmika vichara.

>

>

> >

> >

> > The below explanation has given more room for contemplation which

> > would take some time to digest.

> > Now I have more thoughts generated, hope you can clarify them.

> >

> > " However, Brahman is basically a synethetical experience,

> > insomuchas, to define specificites and have overlapping areas "

> >

> > 1. Can you throw more light on the above sutra

>

> That was not a sutra just my statement. Synesthetical experience

grossly

> defined might mean the taste of colors, the smell of music,etc.

These

> are called synesthetical experiences. Geniuses are inborn with

such a

> synesthetic mind. To expereince Brahman one must have a synesthetic

> experience of both form and formless and thus to say this is that

and

> that is this especially for something which exists everywhere and

is in

> everything is an asinine venture to say the least.

>

> Who am I define or understand the vastness of Paramamvyoman?When

even

> the Milkyway is not even a speck in its grandeur!

> >

> >

> > " In otherwords a Baul would say(or should I say sing?) " Brahman

is

> > both form and formless and both without as Brahman is supreme

and to

> > define it in specific parameters is to confine the brilliance of

> > sun in an earthern cup " "

> >

> > 2. Recently I was informed that both form and formless Bhraman

occur

> > simaltaneously but again contradictly I was told the formless

> > attribute comes out of the form attribute..not sure now

>

>

>

> It is similar to the wave-particle duality. Light is both wave and

> matter, and some scientists view it as just matter. It depends on

the

> purpose of the experiment.Because waves are non-local, all objects

are,

> in theory, non-local, too (exist in many places at once) . The

reason we

> can't detect wave properties of macroscopic particles is their

small

> wavelength. This does not make a wave bereft of its dual nature.

>

> There is always a danger of analogies, because when we compare

Brahman

> with wave-particle duality we are again confining oursleevs within

> parochial parameters.This is not called for.

> >

> > " Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or pious

> > worship of devotees; it is not Its real nature. "

> >

> > 3. The above statement answers partially to query 2 above.

>

>

>

> Yes, it answers your question specifically as emnated form you.

> Experiential questions are to answered with the subject(here Raghu

> Venkata) in question. To an upasaka I would say the

opposite.Infact the

> Brahma Sutras always talk in contradictions, in a diabolical

manner. For

> in thbese contradictions lie some truth.

>

> Contradictory truth-quite an oxymoron! eh?

> >

> >

> > " On the contrary, the other passages which refer to a Brahman

> > qualified by form do not aim at setting forth the nature of

Brahman

> > but rather at enjoying the worship of Brahman. "

> >

> > 4. Worship of Bhraman or would it be Service to Brhman

>

> Worship of Brahman and service of Brahman mean the samething. You

serve

> the Brahman(dont confuse with a Brahmin-which is a casteist

appelation

> given sadly these days to people born in that caste whereas in the

Vedic

> period it was used for those who were in search of the ephemeral

> Brahman)

>

> When you worship you serve the Lord, when you serve, you worship

the

> Lord.

>

>

> >

> >

> > " One must be humble even though one has become a Paramahamsa,

> > because everything ultimately dissolves in the Mahapralaya(the

great

> > cosmic dissolution). "

> >

> > 5. Does cosmic dissolution occur ! The time frame suggested in

the

> > Kalpa are so huge

>

> Time frames are huge, but still they are time frames and one day

they

> end. Thus time too is a falsity.It is a flow in itself, where you

oppose

> it or go wth it, you will end with it too.

> >

> > " Darkness and light both have a meaning, deep embedded brain

meaning

> > too at a gross and a subtle level, thus it aids a devotee seeking

> > gnaana to meditate in a smooth fashion and thus acts as a aid to

> > meditation "

> >

> >

> > 6. I have some understanding here..i may be wrong. Dark is

> > nothing/empty-ness or (blank or void) and Light is something

> > occupying the empty-ness(oxford will faint, when they this

> > word)..then the primary question how did the light occur. And

> > understanding of black holes give a different meaning (i think i

got

> > diverted)

>

> Yes, your logical mind did get diverted here again falling into the

> analogy trap.You will do good to read an old manula on logical

thinking

> called " Crooked thinking and Straight thinking " By Robert

Thouless, he

> explains there how analogies are very dangerous in nature to

support or

> deport and argument.

>

> Ultimately, Brahman does not need the crutch of arguments. It

stays in

> itself full and ripe.Poornamidam, Poornamadah, Poornaaath,

> Poornamudhachyathe'....

> >

> > " Just as fire is hidden in wood or ashes, the knowledge and

power of

> > the soul are hidden, though the Jiva is really the Supreme Lord. "

> >

> > 7. The above sutra is really making mind rush, fire can be

hidden in

> > wood because it can burn but ashes is output of burnt wood,

would it

> > mean that ashes equals to wood+fire ??

> > and could you put some more light on JIVA and SOUL

>

> Yes, ashes can be said to be fire+wood and it can go on and

on....the

> ashes again merge in earth and becomes soil, thus soil becomes

> ashes+wood+fire and thus to infinity till it comes to the fire

again! It

> is all cyclical and logical circularity poses lot of despondency

for the

> mind again here.There is no point in answering circular questions.

One

> has to break it and come out.

> >

> >

> > " Hence the soul does not itself create. If it can, it will never

> > create unpleasant dreams. No one ever wishes for something

> > unpleasant to himself. The soul's knowledge and Lordship remain

> > hidden as long as he erroneously thinks himself as the body,

etc.,

> > as long as he is under the wrong notion of not being distinct

from

> > those limiting adjuncts. "

> >

> > 8. I am lost

>

> That was the basic nature of Athman in you and in me which is

always for

> God and is God.Thus I was explaning the dream state there and how

Athamn

> is hidden in the sheath of Ahamkara(which includes intellecutal

> exercises).

> >

> > " When the individual soul enters Brahman in deep sleep, he/she

> > enters like a pot full of salt water with covered mouth plunged

into

> > the Ganga. When he/she awakens from sleep it is the same pot

taken

> > out of the river with the same water in it. Similarly the

individual

> > soul enveloped by his/her desires goes to sleep and for the time

> > being puts off all sense-activities and goes to the resting place

> > namely, the Supreme Brahman and again comes out of it in order to

> > get further experiences. He does not become identical with

Brahman

> > like the person who has obtained liberation. Thus we hear that

the

> > same soul which had gone to sleep awakes again into the same

body. "

> >

> >

> > 9. Does the above statement mean soul which was of pot and salt

> > water and after returning the sould would be pot+ganga water

>

> You have not understood soul nor my analogy here.

>

> First your misunderstanding:

>

> Soul is forever pure, it does not need a " merging " in Ganga to

keep it

> pure. It doe snot need a " battery-charging " .

>

> Second, in my analogy, I did not mean, dipping the pot fully into

the

> ganges but just till the rim in a perfunctory manner(not taking

into

> count any osmotic water seeping into the earthen pot from ganges)

and

> thus the salt water remains salt water though plunged into ganga.

The

> analogy concentrates on the earthen pot which is the body, the

ahamkara

> and not as much as the saltwater or the ganga. Again a danger in

> anology.

> >

> > " Thus a soul which has realized fully never returns back to the

body

> > frame. That brings us to an interesting question of sudeha moksha

> > (liberation within one's body)...which will be discussed

later.... "

> >

> > 10.Waiting eagerly.

> >

> > Few more thoughts

> >

> > 11. Is there a difference between knowing (here i mean knowledge

of)

> > the self and realising the self

>

> Realising the self means knowing, there is no difference. With

knowledge

> powers seep in automatically. One swami said to me some stories

after

> reading a few books by Vivekananda that one should not hanker after

> powers and that if powers come they should reject it during

meditation.

>

> I said " OK, that is a magnificient attitude toward spiritual

> development. What era you after then? God or Gnaana? "

>

> Then the person answered me " Gnaana ofcourse "

>

> I asked him, " Did you get it? "

>

> He said " yes, that is why Iam a swami "

>

> I said " very well, show me some miracle now "

>

> He said " there you go again, how can i show you a miracle when i

> rejected all powers and got gnaana "

>

> He did not get it. The moment you get Gnaana, you realize the

power of

> soul and thus all of the soul's powers will comeforth. This is

known in

> one esoteric tantra(Krauncha Tantra) as Bhasmadhultiha.Like the

ashes

> which surround a an elephant after its bath, it is momentary till

the

> gnaana is acheived. The moment the elephant(ego) comes to the

shore, it

> pours mud and after the mud it shakes the body, the elephant body

again

> emerges.The soul's power is like that. Gnaana is like the mud, it

acts

> as a catalyst to the power of soul. However, since again there is a

> weaknes sof the analogy I used, I have to extend and say, it is

> essentially the same.

>

> A person with Gnaana wil be filled with Varchas and will have

enormous

> power. Some swamis after doing purascharanas of mantras appear to

have a

> dazzle, which many foolish people called brahmavarchas(ha! great

joke,

> so brahma varchas has become so cheap, a few round sof rosary and

you

> get it?!!..pitiable state of affairs)....that dazzle is the

mantric fire

> which emantes form the body, the aura is clean and thus dazzles,

thats

> all.

>

> To cut a long story short-Essentially there is no difference. It

is not

> some knwoledge on a mental level(I know that is what you had in

your

> mind). Gnaana is somehting more than mere gross intelligence or

> " understanding " something. It is being that, verily, being that.

>

>

> >

> > 12. I understand there lies a interface between been Energy

> > (vibration) and Matter and Gravity (understand this also form of

> > force/energy)..does it exist. If exist, there should be a process

> > (ok ok, i will stop here)

>

>

>

> There is no interface between energy,matter and gravity.

Essentially it

> is all the same expressed in different dimensions thats all.(I too

will

> stop here)

> >

> > I hope I have not drained out your patience. Please let me know

> > whenever you get a chance !!

>

> Hope this helps(further confuse you, hehe!)

>

>

>

> Yours Yogically,

>

>

>

> Shreeram Balijepalli

>

>

> >

> > Regards,

> > Raghu Venkata.

> >

> > Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " para_anuloma "

> > para_anuloma@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Question 1: How does one understand the form and formless

> > attributes of

> > > Brahman?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > First, before I err on the ground of intellectualism, I should

say

> > that

> > > this question too is an experential thing.To put it in a few

> > words " The

> > > way to understand Brahman is at the Feet of one's Gurunatha,

for

> > He is

> > > the sole Brahman, The sole reality "

> > >

> > > This time since I have not drunk any Cranberry juice nor am I

> > sane, let

> > > me answer this question...

> > >

> > > The statement which I made about Gurunatha is the sole truth

and

> > the

> > > answer for all spiritual questions, it is the basic template,

rest

> > of

> > > what I say below is just an embelishment to that supreme

thought.

> > To be

> > > honest with you I know nothing sir as I have not realized

anything

> > nor

> > > am I in at-one-ness with anything. However, I will ramble on...

> > >

> > > The sutrakara of Brahma sutra says at Ubhayalingaadhikaranam

thus:

> > >

> > > Na sthanato'pi parasyobhayalingam sarvatra hi III.2.11 (329)

> > > Not on account of (difference of) place also two-fold

> > > characteristics can belong to the Highest; for everywhere

scripture

> > > teaches It to be without any difference.

> > >

> > > Though scripture should never be the sole basis of

understanding

> > > Brahman, it can be viewed later after a meditative

> > > experience.Brahmasutras are " pithy threaded statements " (sutras)

> > penned

> > > by experential seers. If you realize, you too can write such a

> > > " sutra " .In the scriptures we find two kinds of description

about

> > > Brahman.

> > >

> > > Some texts describe it as qualified, i.e., with attributes

(form as

> > you

> > > put it) and some as unqualified (without attributes). " From

whom

> > all

> > > activities, all desires, all odours and all tastes proceed "

(Chh.

> > Up.

> > > III.14.2). This text speaks of form and attributes innuendo.

> > >

> > > Then Again we have, " It is neither coarse nor fine, neither

short

> > nor

> > > long, neither redness nor moisture " etc. (Bri. Up. III.8.8).

This

> > text

> > > speaks of Brahman without attributes.

> > >

> > > So now we are thrown into confusion here, are we to assume that

> > both are

> > > true of Brahman according as it is or is not connected with

> > limiting

> > > adjuncts or Upadhis or have we to assume only one of them as

true

> > and

> > > the other false? and if so, which is true? and why it is true?

> > >

> > > This Sutra says that the Highest Brahman cannot by itself

possess

> > two

> > > characteristics. In the case of Brahman you cannot say that it

has

> > two

> > > aspects, viz., with form and attributes, and without form and

> > > attributes, i.e., with Upadhis (limiting adjuncts) and without

> > Upadhis,

> > > because It is described everywhere as being Nirguna (without

> > > attributes). Both cannot be predicated of one and the same

Brahman

> > > because it is against experience. One and the same thing cannot

> > have two

> > > contradictory natures at the same time.This is against even a

basic

> > > Tarkawada positation.

> > >

> > > In essence, Brahman cannot at the same time have form and be

> > formless.

> > > The yellowness of a lamp reflected in a crystal does not

change the

> > > nature of the crystal which is colourless. Even so the mere

> > connection

> > > of a thing with another does not change its nature. It is an

> > altogether

> > > erroneous notion to impute yellowness to the crystal. In other

> > words the

> > > yellowness of the crystal is unreal. A thing cannot change its

real

> > > nature.

> > >

> > > (Prakasavacchavaiyarthyat III.2.15 (333)

> > > And as light (assumes forms as it were by its contact with

> > things

> > > possessing form, so does Brahman take form in connection with

> > Upadhis or

> > > limiting adjuncts), because (texts which ascribe form to

Brahman)

> > are

> > > not meaningless. )

> > >

> > > Changes of its real nature means annihilation. Similarly in the

> > case of

> > > Brahman, its connection with the limiting adjuncts like earth,

> > etc., is

> > > due to ignorance. An Upadhi cannot affect the nature of

Brahman,

> > such

> > > Upadhi being merely due to Avidya or nescience. The essential

> > character

> > > of a thing must always remain the same whatever may be the

> > conditions

> > > imposed on it. If however it appears to be altered it is surely

> > due to

> > > ignorance.

> > >

> > > Therefore we may conjecture cautiously that Brahman is without

> > > attributes, because all Sruti texts whose aim is to represent

the

> > nature

> > > of Brahman such as " It is without sound, without touch, without

> > form,

> > > without decay " (Katha Up. I.3.15) teach that It is free from

all

> > > attributes.However, Brahman is basically a synethetical

experience,

> > > insomuchas, to define specificites and have overlapping areas.

> > >

> > > (Na bhedaditi chenna pratyekamatadvachanat III.2.12 (330)

> > > If it be said that it is not so on account of difference

> > (being

> > > taught in the scriptures), we reply that it is not so, because

with

> > > reference to each (such form), the Sruti declares the opposite

of

> > that.

> > > )

> > >

> > > In otherwords a Baul would say(or should I say sing?) "

Brahman is

> > both

> > > form and formless and both without as Brahman is supreme and to

> > define

> > > it in specific parameters is to confine the brilliance of sun

in

> > an

> > > earthern cup "

> > >

> > > Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or

pious

> > worship

> > > of devotees; it is not Its real nature.

> > >

> > > Now, let us see the arguments of Poorvapakshins,The

Purvapakshin

> > says,

> > > " The various Vidyas teach different forms of Brahman. It is

said

> > to have

> > > four feet (Chh. Up. III.18.2); to consist of sixteen parts or

Kalas

> > > (Pras. Up. VI.1); to be characterised by dwarfishness (Katha

Up.

> > V.3);

> > > to have the three worlds for its body (Bri. Up. I.3.22); to be

> > named

> > > Vaisvanara (Chh. Up. V.11.2), etc. Hence we must admit that

> > Brahman is

> > > also qualified. "

> > >

> > > [Figure 3. Yoga Psychology]

> > >

> > > (source:spiritsong.org)

> > >

> > > However,If Brahman be understood to have a form then the

scriptural

> > > passages which describe it as formless would become

meaningless.

> > The

> > > scriptures have a purport all throughout. On the contrary, the

> > other

> > > passages which refer to a Brahman qualified by form do not aim

at

> > > setting forth the nature of Brahman but rather at enjoying the

> > worship

> > > of Brahman.

> > >

> > > The Brahma sutra thus divests each element which makes a

> > specificity

> > > toward the ascribing nature of Brahman and lays it bare.

Reading a

> > > Brahma sutra is not a mere intellectual exercise. In the past

> > golden

> > > days of Dheesara, Gurus used to give the sutras to their

disciples

> > and

> > > ask them to meditate on ecah sutra for days to gain answers

deepn

> > in

> > > their souls...

> > >

> > > Let us do something like that too, with our limitations of

> > > Ghorakaliyuga...

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ------------------------------

----

> > ---

> > >

> > > Question 2: 2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing of

> > animal

> > > skin or

> > > sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas

(vehicles)?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Ofcourse, spirituality and religion are filled symbology as

that

> > is the

> > > language of the subconscious mind. The substratum of the

> > subconscious

> > > mind of a devotee does not understand words. But it does

understand

> > > symbols,powerful symbols at that.

> > >

> > > Shiva wears an elephant skin, to show that ego in the form an

> > elephant

> > > has been subdued if viewed from one angle and in another angle

> > that ego

> > > is a small sheath which covers one from our naked reality.

> > >

> > > Imagine Durgadevi sitting on a Rabbit, what feelings does it

> > evoke? WIll

> > > it have the same puissance as She is sitting on a Lion/tiger?W

hat

> > > nuerological and subconsious images does it evoke?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I will give an example here.

> > >

> > > <http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/hindu/hindudeities>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Why is Brahma shown as above seated on a Paramahamsa?(The great

> > > Swan)...The great swan is a bird which frequents Manasarovar

on the

> > > earthly plane(now in China) and drinks just milk from a

mixture of

> > say

> > > milk and water.

> > >

> > > In other words, the Brahman question you asked....

> > >

> > > what was the milk?---Guru statement which I gave in the

beginning.

> > >

> > > What is the water?---The experential sutra-statements of

someone

> > else

> > > (nevertheless in Brahmasutra) I gave as a bolster.

> > >

> > > The Paramahamsa flies, and yet is light....Brahman

(realization)---

> > will

> > > unburden you of your past baggages and make you ascend.

> > >

> > > If you have seen swans fly, you will observe that its ascent is

> > very

> > > smooth, very graceful, very effortless. One's ascent into

> > spirituality

> > > is also like that ultimately, the vedas,vedantas.brahmasutras

> > burden

> > > one's soul after a certain stage.Why does the Lord sit atop it

with

> > > folded hands, it shows that one must be humble even though one

has

> > > become a Paramahamsa, because everything ultimately dissolves

in

> > the

> > > Mahapralaya(the great cosmic dissolution).

> > >

> > > The color of paramhamsa is white. What does white denote?

White is

> > a

> > > color which denotes purity in spirituality across many regions

and

> > > communities because it is a commingling of all colors(sadly

this

> > has

> > > been taken by some ignorant people to skin level, which is the

> > farthest

> > > from the truth).This does not mean white is a superior color

over

> > black.

> > > Black is found in Kali symbology and almost all deities in a

yogic

> > form.

> > >

> > > Superiority is a terminology of the mind.It simply does not

exist

> > in the

> > > eyes of God. White is the abscence of darkness, the darkness of

> > maya.

> > > Darkness and light both have a meaning, deep embedded brain

> > meaning too

> > > at a gross and a subtle level, thus it aids a devotee seeking

> > gnaana to

> > > meditate in a smooth fashion and thus acts as a aid to

> > meditation.White

> > > paint (or a white coloured surface) is simply one that reflects

> > all or

> > > most of the light hitting it and does so uniformly (does not

> > favour any

> > > particular wavelengths). It may actually look red, green or

black

> > > depending on what coloured light is hitting it, or no light at

> > all. It

> > > is because the colour white reflects everything that white (or

> > light

> > > coloured) fabrics are cooler in summer. White is taken as an

aid

> > for

> > > innocence which characterizes a true gnaani.

> > >

> > > Thus a meditator is taken to a higher plane of Gnana when using

> > such

> > > visual aids.

> > >

> > > Animals evoke stronger feelings than human beings when trying

to

> > portray

> > > a raw image.A raw feeling is portrayed by an innocent animal

> > better than

> > > a pretending human being.

> > >

> > > ------------------------------

----

> > -----\

> > >

> > >

> > > 3. Does soul remember its identity after realisation?

> > >

> > > Going by the texts, No.

> > >

> > > But this question cannot be answered, unless one experiences a

> > > relaization, and then a merging occurs and the memories will be

> > > lost.Thus there is no answer to this question. This too is an

> > > experential question.

> > >

> > > [Figure 4. Antahkarana]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > (source:spiritsong.org)

> > >

> > > In sandhyadhikaranam-Brahmasutras-one sutra says thus-

> > >

> > > Dehayogadva so'pi III.2.6 (324)

> > > And that (viz., the concealment of the soul's rulership)

> > also

> > > (results) from its connection with the body.

> > >

> > > Such hiding of power is due to embodiment of the soul. The

state of

> > > concealment of the soul's knowledge and Lordship is due to its

> > being

> > > joined to a body, i.e., to a body, sense-organs, mind,

intellect,

> > > sense-objects, sensations, etc., on account of ignorance. Just

as

> > fire

> > > is hidden in wood or ashes, the knowledge and power of the

soul are

> > > hidden, though the Jiva is really the Supreme Lord. Hence the

soul

> > does

> > > not itself create. If it can, it will never create unpleasant

> > dreams. No

> > > one ever wishes for something unpleasant to himself. The soul's

> > > knowledge and Lordship remain hidden as long as he erroneously

> > thinks

> > > himself as the body, etc., as long as he is under the wrong

notion

> > of

> > > not being distinct from those limiting adjuncts.

> > >

> > > When the individual soul enters Brahman in deep sleep, he/she

> > enters

> > > like a pot full of salt water with covered mouth plunged into

the

> > Ganga.

> > > When he/she awakens from sleep it is the same pot taken out of

the

> > river

> > > with the same water in it. Similarly the individual soul

enveloped

> > by

> > > his/her desires goes to sleep and for the time being puts off

all

> > > sense-activities and goes to the resting place namely, the

Supreme

> > > Brahman and again comes out of it in order to get further

> > experiences.

> > > He does not become identical with Brahman like the person who

has

> > > obtained liberation. Thus we hear that the same soul which had

> > gone to

> > > sleep awakes again into the same body.

> > >

> > > Thus a soul which has realized fully never returns back to the

body

> > > frame. That brings us to an interesting question of sudeha

> > > moksha(liberation within one's body)...which will be discussed

> > later....

> > >

> > > For now, let me rest my speeding fingers...

> > >

> > > Yours yogically,

> > >

> > > Shreeram Balijepalli

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --- In

Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " raghuvenkataj "

> > > <raghuvenkataj@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sir,

> > > > I have three queries,

> > > > 1. How does one understand the form and formless attributes

of

> > Bhraman

> > > > 2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing of animal

skin

> > or

> > > > sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas

(vehicles).

> > > > 3. Does soul remember its identity after realisation

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Raghu Venkata.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

You are free to ask any number of queries you have.

 

Shreeram

 

 

Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " raghuvenkataj "

<raghuvenkataj wrote:

>

> Dear Sir,

>

> Thanks again for the clarifications. Though I have some queries but

> I will be silent till such time !!!!

>

> Regards,

> Raghu Venkata.

>

>

> Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " para_anuloma "

> <para_anuloma@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > See replies below in violet color...

> >

> >

> > Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " raghuvenkataj "

> > <raghuvenkataj@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sir,

> > > First let me thank you for the exhaustive

> > > (image+chart+description+references) explanation.

> > >

> > > Before you read further, I request you to charge your patience

> and

> > > bear my meek queries and observations.

> > >

> > > Look-like the form and formless attribute leading to anology of

> > > quantum mechanics (probability,entanglement..neils bohr) and

> atomic

> > > physics (reality, actuality..Albeter Einstien) which are true at

> > > different instances of time. Ofcourse spiritual understanding is

> > > entirely different and one has to experience to understand as

you

> > > have put it rightly.

> > >

> > > In earlier days I used to think one who has realised cannot

> exist in

> > > the physical world (exception of 1,2,3..10 cases) and one who

> exists

> > > is yet to realise. (I may be wrong now..still contemplation is

> > > required)

> >

> > Thinking will never produce any answer on such experential

> > questions.Deep meditation wher you forget yourself, where the

> knower,

> > the known and the to-be-known becomes one will give you the

answer.

> >

> > Your mind is on a logical run so, how many times, I might answer

> your

> > questions, new questions will sprout from them. Tatwa shuddhi is

> > necessary before adhyaatmika vichara.

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > The below explanation has given more room for contemplation

which

> > > would take some time to digest.

> > > Now I have more thoughts generated, hope you can clarify them.

> > >

> > > " However, Brahman is basically a synethetical experience,

> > > insomuchas, to define specificites and have overlapping areas "

> > >

> > > 1. Can you throw more light on the above sutra

> >

> > That was not a sutra just my statement. Synesthetical experience

> grossly

> > defined might mean the taste of colors, the smell of music,etc.

> These

> > are called synesthetical experiences. Geniuses are inborn with

> such a

> > synesthetic mind. To expereince Brahman one must have a

synesthetic

> > experience of both form and formless and thus to say this is that

> and

> > that is this especially for something which exists everywhere and

> is in

> > everything is an asinine venture to say the least.

> >

> > Who am I define or understand the vastness of Paramamvyoman?When

> even

> > the Milkyway is not even a speck in its grandeur!

> > >

> > >

> > > " In otherwords a Baul would say(or should I say sing?) "

Brahman

> is

> > > both form and formless and both without as Brahman is supreme

> and to

> > > define it in specific parameters is to confine the brilliance of

> > > sun in an earthern cup " "

> > >

> > > 2. Recently I was informed that both form and formless Bhraman

> occur

> > > simaltaneously but again contradictly I was told the formless

> > > attribute comes out of the form attribute..not sure now

> >

> >

> >

> > It is similar to the wave-particle duality. Light is both wave and

> > matter, and some scientists view it as just matter. It depends on

> the

> > purpose of the experiment.Because waves are non-local, all

objects

> are,

> > in theory, non-local, too (exist in many places at once) . The

> reason we

> > can't detect wave properties of macroscopic particles is their

> small

> > wavelength. This does not make a wave bereft of its dual nature.

> >

> > There is always a danger of analogies, because when we compare

> Brahman

> > with wave-particle duality we are again confining oursleevs within

> > parochial parameters.This is not called for.

> > >

> > > " Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or

pious

> > > worship of devotees; it is not Its real nature. "

> > >

> > > 3. The above statement answers partially to query 2 above.

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes, it answers your question specifically as emnated form you.

> > Experiential questions are to answered with the subject(here Raghu

> > Venkata) in question. To an upasaka I would say the

> opposite.Infact the

> > Brahma Sutras always talk in contradictions, in a diabolical

> manner. For

> > in thbese contradictions lie some truth.

> >

> > Contradictory truth-quite an oxymoron! eh?

> > >

> > >

> > > " On the contrary, the other passages which refer to a Brahman

> > > qualified by form do not aim at setting forth the nature of

> Brahman

> > > but rather at enjoying the worship of Brahman. "

> > >

> > > 4. Worship of Bhraman or would it be Service to Brhman

> >

> > Worship of Brahman and service of Brahman mean the samething. You

> serve

> > the Brahman(dont confuse with a Brahmin-which is a casteist

> appelation

> > given sadly these days to people born in that caste whereas in

the

> Vedic

> > period it was used for those who were in search of the ephemeral

> > Brahman)

> >

> > When you worship you serve the Lord, when you serve, you worship

> the

> > Lord.

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > " One must be humble even though one has become a Paramahamsa,

> > > because everything ultimately dissolves in the Mahapralaya(the

> great

> > > cosmic dissolution). "

> > >

> > > 5. Does cosmic dissolution occur ! The time frame suggested in

> the

> > > Kalpa are so huge

> >

> > Time frames are huge, but still they are time frames and one day

> they

> > end. Thus time too is a falsity.It is a flow in itself, where you

> oppose

> > it or go wth it, you will end with it too.

> > >

> > > " Darkness and light both have a meaning, deep embedded brain

> meaning

> > > too at a gross and a subtle level, thus it aids a devotee

seeking

> > > gnaana to meditate in a smooth fashion and thus acts as a aid to

> > > meditation "

> > >

> > >

> > > 6. I have some understanding here..i may be wrong. Dark is

> > > nothing/empty-ness or (blank or void) and Light is something

> > > occupying the empty-ness(oxford will faint, when they this

> > > word)..then the primary question how did the light occur. And

> > > understanding of black holes give a different meaning (i think

i

> got

> > > diverted)

> >

> > Yes, your logical mind did get diverted here again falling into

the

> > analogy trap.You will do good to read an old manula on logical

> thinking

> > called " Crooked thinking and Straight thinking " By Robert

> Thouless, he

> > explains there how analogies are very dangerous in nature to

> support or

> > deport and argument.

> >

> > Ultimately, Brahman does not need the crutch of arguments. It

> stays in

> > itself full and ripe.Poornamidam, Poornamadah, Poornaaath,

> > Poornamudhachyathe'....

> > >

> > > " Just as fire is hidden in wood or ashes, the knowledge and

> power of

> > > the soul are hidden, though the Jiva is really the Supreme

Lord. "

> > >

> > > 7. The above sutra is really making mind rush, fire can be

> hidden in

> > > wood because it can burn but ashes is output of burnt wood,

> would it

> > > mean that ashes equals to wood+fire ??

> > > and could you put some more light on JIVA and SOUL

> >

> > Yes, ashes can be said to be fire+wood and it can go on and

> on....the

> > ashes again merge in earth and becomes soil, thus soil becomes

> > ashes+wood+fire and thus to infinity till it comes to the fire

> again! It

> > is all cyclical and logical circularity poses lot of despondency

> for the

> > mind again here.There is no point in answering circular

questions.

> One

> > has to break it and come out.

> > >

> > >

> > > " Hence the soul does not itself create. If it can, it will never

> > > create unpleasant dreams. No one ever wishes for something

> > > unpleasant to himself. The soul's knowledge and Lordship remain

> > > hidden as long as he erroneously thinks himself as the body,

> etc.,

> > > as long as he is under the wrong notion of not being distinct

> from

> > > those limiting adjuncts. "

> > >

> > > 8. I am lost

> >

> > That was the basic nature of Athman in you and in me which is

> always for

> > God and is God.Thus I was explaning the dream state there and how

> Athamn

> > is hidden in the sheath of Ahamkara(which includes intellecutal

> > exercises).

> > >

> > > " When the individual soul enters Brahman in deep sleep, he/she

> > > enters like a pot full of salt water with covered mouth plunged

> into

> > > the Ganga. When he/she awakens from sleep it is the same pot

> taken

> > > out of the river with the same water in it. Similarly the

> individual

> > > soul enveloped by his/her desires goes to sleep and for the time

> > > being puts off all sense-activities and goes to the resting

place

> > > namely, the Supreme Brahman and again comes out of it in order

to

> > > get further experiences. He does not become identical with

> Brahman

> > > like the person who has obtained liberation. Thus we hear that

> the

> > > same soul which had gone to sleep awakes again into the same

> body. "

> > >

> > >

> > > 9. Does the above statement mean soul which was of pot and salt

> > > water and after returning the sould would be pot+ganga water

> >

> > You have not understood soul nor my analogy here.

> >

> > First your misunderstanding:

> >

> > Soul is forever pure, it does not need a " merging " in Ganga to

> keep it

> > pure. It doe snot need a " battery-charging " .

> >

> > Second, in my analogy, I did not mean, dipping the pot fully into

> the

> > ganges but just till the rim in a perfunctory manner(not taking

> into

> > count any osmotic water seeping into the earthen pot from ganges)

> and

> > thus the salt water remains salt water though plunged into ganga.

> The

> > analogy concentrates on the earthen pot which is the body, the

> ahamkara

> > and not as much as the saltwater or the ganga. Again a danger in

> > anology.

> > >

> > > " Thus a soul which has realized fully never returns back to the

> body

> > > frame. That brings us to an interesting question of sudeha

moksha

> > > (liberation within one's body)...which will be discussed

> later.... "

> > >

> > > 10.Waiting eagerly.

> > >

> > > Few more thoughts

> > >

> > > 11. Is there a difference between knowing (here i mean

knowledge

> of)

> > > the self and realising the self

> >

> > Realising the self means knowing, there is no difference. With

> knowledge

> > powers seep in automatically. One swami said to me some stories

> after

> > reading a few books by Vivekananda that one should not hanker

after

> > powers and that if powers come they should reject it during

> meditation.

> >

> > I said " OK, that is a magnificient attitude toward spiritual

> > development. What era you after then? God or Gnaana? "

> >

> > Then the person answered me " Gnaana ofcourse "

> >

> > I asked him, " Did you get it? "

> >

> > He said " yes, that is why Iam a swami "

> >

> > I said " very well, show me some miracle now "

> >

> > He said " there you go again, how can i show you a miracle when i

> > rejected all powers and got gnaana "

> >

> > He did not get it. The moment you get Gnaana, you realize the

> power of

> > soul and thus all of the soul's powers will comeforth. This is

> known in

> > one esoteric tantra(Krauncha Tantra) as Bhasmadhultiha.Like the

> ashes

> > which surround a an elephant after its bath, it is momentary till

> the

> > gnaana is acheived. The moment the elephant(ego) comes to the

> shore, it

> > pours mud and after the mud it shakes the body, the elephant body

> again

> > emerges.The soul's power is like that. Gnaana is like the mud, it

> acts

> > as a catalyst to the power of soul. However, since again there is

a

> > weaknes sof the analogy I used, I have to extend and say, it is

> > essentially the same.

> >

> > A person with Gnaana wil be filled with Varchas and will have

> enormous

> > power. Some swamis after doing purascharanas of mantras appear to

> have a

> > dazzle, which many foolish people called brahmavarchas(ha! great

> joke,

> > so brahma varchas has become so cheap, a few round sof rosary and

> you

> > get it?!!..pitiable state of affairs)....that dazzle is the

> mantric fire

> > which emantes form the body, the aura is clean and thus dazzles,

> thats

> > all.

> >

> > To cut a long story short-Essentially there is no difference. It

> is not

> > some knwoledge on a mental level(I know that is what you had in

> your

> > mind). Gnaana is somehting more than mere gross intelligence or

> > " understanding " something. It is being that, verily, being that.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > 12. I understand there lies a interface between been Energy

> > > (vibration) and Matter and Gravity (understand this also form of

> > > force/energy)..does it exist. If exist, there should be a

process

> > > (ok ok, i will stop here)

> >

> >

> >

> > There is no interface between energy,matter and gravity.

> Essentially it

> > is all the same expressed in different dimensions thats all.(I

too

> will

> > stop here)

> > >

> > > I hope I have not drained out your patience. Please let me know

> > > whenever you get a chance !!

> >

> > Hope this helps(further confuse you, hehe!)

> >

> >

> >

> > Yours Yogically,

> >

> >

> >

> > Shreeram Balijepalli

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Raghu Venkata.

> > >

> > > Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " para_anuloma "

> > > para_anuloma@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Question 1: How does one understand the form and formless

> > > attributes of

> > > > Brahman?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > First, before I err on the ground of intellectualism, I

should

> say

> > > that

> > > > this question too is an experential thing.To put it in a few

> > > words " The

> > > > way to understand Brahman is at the Feet of one's Gurunatha,

> for

> > > He is

> > > > the sole Brahman, The sole reality "

> > > >

> > > > This time since I have not drunk any Cranberry juice nor am I

> > > sane, let

> > > > me answer this question...

> > > >

> > > > The statement which I made about Gurunatha is the sole truth

> and

> > > the

> > > > answer for all spiritual questions, it is the basic template,

> rest

> > > of

> > > > what I say below is just an embelishment to that supreme

> thought.

> > > To be

> > > > honest with you I know nothing sir as I have not realized

> anything

> > > nor

> > > > am I in at-one-ness with anything. However, I will ramble

on...

> > > >

> > > > The sutrakara of Brahma sutra says at Ubhayalingaadhikaranam

> thus:

> > > >

> > > > Na sthanato'pi parasyobhayalingam sarvatra hi III.2.11 (329)

> > > > Not on account of (difference of) place also two-fold

> > > > characteristics can belong to the Highest; for everywhere

> scripture

> > > > teaches It to be without any difference.

> > > >

> > > > Though scripture should never be the sole basis of

> understanding

> > > > Brahman, it can be viewed later after a meditative

> > > > experience.Brahmasutras are " pithy threaded

statements " (sutras)

> > > penned

> > > > by experential seers. If you realize, you too can write such a

> > > > " sutra " .In the scriptures we find two kinds of description

> about

> > > > Brahman.

> > > >

> > > > Some texts describe it as qualified, i.e., with attributes

> (form as

> > > you

> > > > put it) and some as unqualified (without attributes). " From

> whom

> > > all

> > > > activities, all desires, all odours and all tastes proceed "

> (Chh.

> > > Up.

> > > > III.14.2). This text speaks of form and attributes innuendo.

> > > >

> > > > Then Again we have, " It is neither coarse nor fine, neither

> short

> > > nor

> > > > long, neither redness nor moisture " etc. (Bri. Up. III.8.8).

> This

> > > text

> > > > speaks of Brahman without attributes.

> > > >

> > > > So now we are thrown into confusion here, are we to assume

that

> > > both are

> > > > true of Brahman according as it is or is not connected with

> > > limiting

> > > > adjuncts or Upadhis or have we to assume only one of them as

> true

> > > and

> > > > the other false? and if so, which is true? and why it is true?

> > > >

> > > > This Sutra says that the Highest Brahman cannot by itself

> possess

> > > two

> > > > characteristics. In the case of Brahman you cannot say that

it

> has

> > > two

> > > > aspects, viz., with form and attributes, and without form and

> > > > attributes, i.e., with Upadhis (limiting adjuncts) and without

> > > Upadhis,

> > > > because It is described everywhere as being Nirguna (without

> > > > attributes). Both cannot be predicated of one and the same

> Brahman

> > > > because it is against experience. One and the same thing

cannot

> > > have two

> > > > contradictory natures at the same time.This is against even a

> basic

> > > > Tarkawada positation.

> > > >

> > > > In essence, Brahman cannot at the same time have form and be

> > > formless.

> > > > The yellowness of a lamp reflected in a crystal does not

> change the

> > > > nature of the crystal which is colourless. Even so the mere

> > > connection

> > > > of a thing with another does not change its nature. It is an

> > > altogether

> > > > erroneous notion to impute yellowness to the crystal. In other

> > > words the

> > > > yellowness of the crystal is unreal. A thing cannot change

its

> real

> > > > nature.

> > > >

> > > > (Prakasavacchavaiyarthyat III.2.15 (333)

> > > > And as light (assumes forms as it were by its contact with

> > > things

> > > > possessing form, so does Brahman take form in connection with

> > > Upadhis or

> > > > limiting adjuncts), because (texts which ascribe form to

> Brahman)

> > > are

> > > > not meaningless. )

> > > >

> > > > Changes of its real nature means annihilation. Similarly in

the

> > > case of

> > > > Brahman, its connection with the limiting adjuncts like earth,

> > > etc., is

> > > > due to ignorance. An Upadhi cannot affect the nature of

> Brahman,

> > > such

> > > > Upadhi being merely due to Avidya or nescience. The essential

> > > character

> > > > of a thing must always remain the same whatever may be the

> > > conditions

> > > > imposed on it. If however it appears to be altered it is

surely

> > > due to

> > > > ignorance.

> > > >

> > > > Therefore we may conjecture cautiously that Brahman is without

> > > > attributes, because all Sruti texts whose aim is to represent

> the

> > > nature

> > > > of Brahman such as " It is without sound, without touch,

without

> > > form,

> > > > without decay " (Katha Up. I.3.15) teach that It is free from

> all

> > > > attributes.However, Brahman is basically a synethetical

> experience,

> > > > insomuchas, to define specificites and have overlapping areas.

> > > >

> > > > (Na bhedaditi chenna pratyekamatadvachanat III.2.12 (330)

> > > > If it be said that it is not so on account of difference

> > > (being

> > > > taught in the scriptures), we reply that it is not so,

because

> with

> > > > reference to each (such form), the Sruti declares the

opposite

> of

> > > that.

> > > > )

> > > >

> > > > In otherwords a Baul would say(or should I say sing?) "

> Brahman is

> > > both

> > > > form and formless and both without as Brahman is supreme and

to

> > > define

> > > > it in specific parameters is to confine the brilliance of sun

> in

> > > an

> > > > earthern cup "

> > > >

> > > > Brahman with attributes is only for the sake of Upasana or

> pious

> > > worship

> > > > of devotees; it is not Its real nature.

> > > >

> > > > Now, let us see the arguments of Poorvapakshins,The

> Purvapakshin

> > > says,

> > > > " The various Vidyas teach different forms of Brahman. It is

> said

> > > to have

> > > > four feet (Chh. Up. III.18.2); to consist of sixteen parts or

> Kalas

> > > > (Pras. Up. VI.1); to be characterised by dwarfishness (Katha

> Up.

> > > V.3);

> > > > to have the three worlds for its body (Bri. Up. I.3.22); to be

> > > named

> > > > Vaisvanara (Chh. Up. V.11.2), etc. Hence we must admit that

> > > Brahman is

> > > > also qualified. "

> > > >

> > > > [Figure 3. Yoga Psychology]

> > > >

> > > > (source:spiritsong.org)

> > > >

> > > > However,If Brahman be understood to have a form then the

> scriptural

> > > > passages which describe it as formless would become

> meaningless.

> > > The

> > > > scriptures have a purport all throughout. On the contrary, the

> > > other

> > > > passages which refer to a Brahman qualified by form do not

aim

> at

> > > > setting forth the nature of Brahman but rather at enjoying the

> > > worship

> > > > of Brahman.

> > > >

> > > > The Brahma sutra thus divests each element which makes a

> > > specificity

> > > > toward the ascribing nature of Brahman and lays it bare.

> Reading a

> > > > Brahma sutra is not a mere intellectual exercise. In the past

> > > golden

> > > > days of Dheesara, Gurus used to give the sutras to their

> disciples

> > > and

> > > > ask them to meditate on ecah sutra for days to gain answers

> deepn

> > > in

> > > > their souls...

> > > >

> > > > Let us do something like that too, with our limitations of

> > > > Ghorakaliyuga...

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -----------------------------

-

> ----

> > > ---

> > > >

> > > > Question 2: 2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing

of

> > > animal

> > > > skin or

> > > > sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas

> (vehicles)?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Ofcourse, spirituality and religion are filled symbology as

> that

> > > is the

> > > > language of the subconscious mind. The substratum of the

> > > subconscious

> > > > mind of a devotee does not understand words. But it does

> understand

> > > > symbols,powerful symbols at that.

> > > >

> > > > Shiva wears an elephant skin, to show that ego in the form an

> > > elephant

> > > > has been subdued if viewed from one angle and in another angle

> > > that ego

> > > > is a small sheath which covers one from our naked reality.

> > > >

> > > > Imagine Durgadevi sitting on a Rabbit, what feelings does it

> > > evoke? WIll

> > > > it have the same puissance as She is sitting on a Lion/tiger?

W

> hat

> > > > nuerological and subconsious images does it evoke?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I will give an example here.

> > > >

> > > > <http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/hindu/hindudeities>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Why is Brahma shown as above seated on a Paramahamsa?(The

great

> > > > Swan)...The great swan is a bird which frequents Manasarovar

> on the

> > > > earthly plane(now in China) and drinks just milk from a

> mixture of

> > > say

> > > > milk and water.

> > > >

> > > > In other words, the Brahman question you asked....

> > > >

> > > > what was the milk?---Guru statement which I gave in the

> beginning.

> > > >

> > > > What is the water?---The experential sutra-statements of

> someone

> > > else

> > > > (nevertheless in Brahmasutra) I gave as a bolster.

> > > >

> > > > The Paramahamsa flies, and yet is light....Brahman

> (realization)---

> > > will

> > > > unburden you of your past baggages and make you ascend.

> > > >

> > > > If you have seen swans fly, you will observe that its ascent

is

> > > very

> > > > smooth, very graceful, very effortless. One's ascent into

> > > spirituality

> > > > is also like that ultimately, the vedas,vedantas.brahmasutras

> > > burden

> > > > one's soul after a certain stage.Why does the Lord sit atop

it

> with

> > > > folded hands, it shows that one must be humble even though

one

> has

> > > > become a Paramahamsa, because everything ultimately dissolves

> in

> > > the

> > > > Mahapralaya(the great cosmic dissolution).

> > > >

> > > > The color of paramhamsa is white. What does white denote?

> White is

> > > a

> > > > color which denotes purity in spirituality across many

regions

> and

> > > > communities because it is a commingling of all colors(sadly

> this

> > > has

> > > > been taken by some ignorant people to skin level, which is the

> > > farthest

> > > > from the truth).This does not mean white is a superior color

> over

> > > black.

> > > > Black is found in Kali symbology and almost all deities in a

> yogic

> > > form.

> > > >

> > > > Superiority is a terminology of the mind.It simply does not

> exist

> > > in the

> > > > eyes of God. White is the abscence of darkness, the darkness

of

> > > maya.

> > > > Darkness and light both have a meaning, deep embedded brain

> > > meaning too

> > > > at a gross and a subtle level, thus it aids a devotee seeking

> > > gnaana to

> > > > meditate in a smooth fashion and thus acts as a aid to

> > > meditation.White

> > > > paint (or a white coloured surface) is simply one that

reflects

> > > all or

> > > > most of the light hitting it and does so uniformly (does not

> > > favour any

> > > > particular wavelengths). It may actually look red, green or

> black

> > > > depending on what coloured light is hitting it, or no light at

> > > all. It

> > > > is because the colour white reflects everything that white (or

> > > light

> > > > coloured) fabrics are cooler in summer. White is taken as an

> aid

> > > for

> > > > innocence which characterizes a true gnaani.

> > > >

> > > > Thus a meditator is taken to a higher plane of Gnana when

using

> > > such

> > > > visual aids.

> > > >

> > > > Animals evoke stronger feelings than human beings when trying

> to

> > > portray

> > > > a raw image.A raw feeling is portrayed by an innocent animal

> > > better than

> > > > a pretending human being.

> > > >

> > > > -----------------------------

-

> ----

> > > -----\

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 3. Does soul remember its identity after realisation?

> > > >

> > > > Going by the texts, No.

> > > >

> > > > But this question cannot be answered, unless one experiences a

> > > > relaization, and then a merging occurs and the memories will

be

> > > > lost.Thus there is no answer to this question. This too is an

> > > > experential question.

> > > >

> > > > [Figure 4. Antahkarana]

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > (source:spiritsong.org)

> > > >

> > > > In sandhyadhikaranam-Brahmasutras-one sutra says thus-

> > > >

> > > > Dehayogadva so'pi III.2.6 (324)

> > > > And that (viz., the concealment of the soul's rulership)

> > > also

> > > > (results) from its connection with the body.

> > > >

> > > > Such hiding of power is due to embodiment of the soul. The

> state of

> > > > concealment of the soul's knowledge and Lordship is due to its

> > > being

> > > > joined to a body, i.e., to a body, sense-organs, mind,

> intellect,

> > > > sense-objects, sensations, etc., on account of ignorance.

Just

> as

> > > fire

> > > > is hidden in wood or ashes, the knowledge and power of the

> soul are

> > > > hidden, though the Jiva is really the Supreme Lord. Hence the

> soul

> > > does

> > > > not itself create. If it can, it will never create unpleasant

> > > dreams. No

> > > > one ever wishes for something unpleasant to himself. The

soul's

> > > > knowledge and Lordship remain hidden as long as he erroneously

> > > thinks

> > > > himself as the body, etc., as long as he is under the wrong

> notion

> > > of

> > > > not being distinct from those limiting adjuncts.

> > > >

> > > > When the individual soul enters Brahman in deep sleep, he/she

> > > enters

> > > > like a pot full of salt water with covered mouth plunged into

> the

> > > Ganga.

> > > > When he/she awakens from sleep it is the same pot taken out

of

> the

> > > river

> > > > with the same water in it. Similarly the individual soul

> enveloped

> > > by

> > > > his/her desires goes to sleep and for the time being puts off

> all

> > > > sense-activities and goes to the resting place namely, the

> Supreme

> > > > Brahman and again comes out of it in order to get further

> > > experiences.

> > > > He does not become identical with Brahman like the person who

> has

> > > > obtained liberation. Thus we hear that the same soul which had

> > > gone to

> > > > sleep awakes again into the same body.

> > > >

> > > > Thus a soul which has realized fully never returns back to

the

> body

> > > > frame. That brings us to an interesting question of sudeha

> > > > moksha(liberation within one's body)...which will be discussed

> > > later....

> > > >

> > > > For now, let me rest my speeding fingers...

> > > >

> > > > Yours yogically,

> > > >

> > > > Shreeram Balijepalli

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- In

> Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " raghuvenkataj "

> > > > <raghuvenkataj@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sir,

> > > > > I have three queries,

> > > > > 1. How does one understand the form and formless attributes

> of

> > > Bhraman

> > > > > 2. Is there a is symbology associated to wearing of animal

> skin

> > > or

> > > > > sitting on animal and gods sitting on various vahanas

> (vehicles).

> > > > > 3. Does soul remember its identity after realisation

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Raghu Venkata.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>